Zeitgeist, 9/11, and Other Conspiracies

[Phaneuf3]

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by bcb

It's okay, I watched 'loose change', then I read a point by point rebuttal. Let me ask you this: If the kid who made loose change and all the other conspiracy nutjobs are correct, why would the US Gov. let them all live? Surely the US Gov. would have no qualms about getting rid of a few pimply faced nerds living in their parents' basement to ensure the plan remains secret for many years to come?

Well, the conspiracy folks are a minority to say the least. Most people are way to lazy to do their own research, so they just jump on the anti-conspiracy band wagon. Most people put total trust in the media in North America also, and the media has smeared the truthers pretty badly. The conspirators are depending on people to remain ignorant.....
...and Loose Change is not the best documentary to watch, although "Final Cut" is alot better than the first one they released. That one a few pages back on the Pentagon was very good actually........

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Tower

Well you have no proof of what I have done Resolute... You are blind, and choose to remain that way. Empty are your words. My gospel? Ha ha ha nope, I discuss our common law. Because you wish to ignore it is your choice. The truth is always harder to believe, however I do apologize to all whom I failed to explain to... Sometimes I had a bit too much ale... lol

The fact you think I'm a TROLL(tm) creates no burden upon me. I know who I am sir. I'm doing quite well.

I also enjoy the rebuttals from lawyers. You believe they are on your side or visa versa but really you are playing the game they swore an oath to protect. They do not like me because they can not touch me without creating injury. This is what scares them. The law practiced by them only exists to make money and control. I am a Freeman-on-the-land and I am proud of it. Soon I will assist many people with what information they need to be free from the police state policy which is IMO the policy many are "forced" (anything in quotes isn't real under legal)to uphold to.

So what you think toward me is as important as what my sphincters passed this morning... It was massive but flushed quite easy from my site and thought.

What are you doing to help your fellow man?

You're a God Damn Liar!
We've asked you too many times to count to give us even one little shred of evidence, even anectdotal from your own experience that anything you've spoken about is true, or works, and you've time and time again refused to give it up.

So I reiterate. You say you know who you are, well so do I, you are a hypocrite and a liar.

[photon]

Originally Posted by 666DanceParty

Like Larry Silverstein for instance, admitting to Building 7 being a controlled demolition. Like the crash site of Flight 93 and how little sense it made. The list goes on and on and all you have to do is open your eyes to the possibility that maybe the official story doesn't stack up. I think you might be surprised in what you might find out if you allow yourself to.

5 years ago called and they'd like their "facts" back. Everything you mention has been talked about and debunked more than half a decade ago.

And ultimately that's why these threads are disruptive to a forum. They basically become a religious topic with the conspiracy theorists preaching, and preaching isn't a discussion, it's one sided. Reasonable people will change or at least weaken their position when confronted with contrary evidence or when something that supports their position has been undermined, but with "Truthers" that's not the case; they'll continue to preach the flawed claims endlessly.

So eventually reasonable people become hopelessly frustrated because there's no actual discussion, and everything goes downhill to insults and bickering.

At the end of the day the mods who volunteer their time aren't interested in dedicating their lives to try and keep the discussions reasonable and on topic when their time is much better spent moderating Flames related threads (unless Sisyphus becomes a mod).

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Well, the conspiracy folks are a minority to say the least. Most people are way to lazy to do their own research, so they just jump on the anti-conspiracy band wagon. Most people put total trust in the media in North America also, and the media has smeared the truthers pretty badly. The conspirators are depending on people to remain ignorant.....
...and Loose Change is not the best documentary to watch, although "Final Cut" is alot better than the first one they released. That one a few pages back on the Pentagon was very good actually........

Riiiiiiiiiight.
I'm pretty sure all of the 'anti-conspiracy' people here have seen these poorly made and factually dubious 'documentaries' and have done their own research to debunk them but feel free to believe whatever makes you feel so self important and enlightened. The media doesn't need to smear the truthers, the truthers and birthers doing a pretty good job of that themselves.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by T@T

I didn't read this thread nor will I but I will say this. If anyone believes 911 was a conspiracy by the US to start a war is very shallow.

Every single point the conspiracy proponents bring up can be explained away in an instant.

No they cannot actually, you are just being ignorant. The conspiracy theories do not, and cannot explain the 9/11 attacks in full, but they raise many questions that simply have not been addressed by the 9/11 commission report. The "official" account of the events has more holes in it than the conpiracy side........

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Riiiiiiiiiight.
I'm pretty sure all of the 'anti-conspiracy' people here have seen these poorly made and factually dubious 'documentaries' and have done their own research to debunk them but feel free to believe whatever makes you feel so self important and enlightened. The media doesn't need to smear the truthers, the truthers and birthers doing a pretty good job of that themselves.

Well yeah, some posters did link to sites that try to de-bunk the conspiracy theories.........but for every one of those there is a site that de-bunks the de-bunking sites.........and I have seen de-bunking sites that have been inaccurate as well.
I'm not saying all the documentaries are fabulous, but there is some quality info out there.....

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The "official" account of the events has more holes in it than the conpiracy side........

That is because inventing "truth" is easier than seeking truth.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

No they cannot actually, you are just being ignorant. The conspiracy theories do not, and cannot explain the 9/11 attacks in full, but they raise many questions that simply have not been addressed by the 9/11 commission report. The "official" account of the events has more holes in it than the conpiracy side........

Wow, that's a pretty bold statement. Maybe the official report does have more holes than the conspiracy side, but that's becasue the official story looks at the whole picture. Anything on this large a scale is going to have tiny insignifigant bits of information that don't seem to match up.
But yeah, when you only choose to look at those little bits of info and make up some wild story, and ignore all reasonable logic, I guess you can say your side has less holes.

Except the holes in official story are small and inconsequential, where as the holes in the consipiracy story are so big you could fly a freaking American Airlines Jet through them.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Well, the conspiracy folks are a minority to say the least. Most people are way to lazy to do their own research, so they just jump on the anti-conspiracy band wagon. Most people put total trust in the media in North America also, and the media has smeared the truthers pretty badly. The conspirators are depending on people to remain ignorant.....
...and Loose Change is not the best documentary to watch, although "Final Cut" is alot better than the first one they released. That one a few pages back on the Pentagon was very good actually........

You don't do your own research. Reading infowars, watching zeitgeist, loose change, etc... is not research, that's reading someone else's research and that's what you do and regurgitate it. And if you did any of your own research you wouldn't be called out so many times stating things as fact that are blatantly false.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

No they cannot actually, you are just being ignorant. The conspiracy theories do not, and cannot explain the 9/11 attacks in full, but they raise many questions that simply have not been addressed by the 9/11 commission report. The "official" account of the events has more holes in it than the conpiracy side........

Yes they can.
You are ignorant.
That's because they are looking for something that isn't there.
No they don't.
No it doesn't.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Well yeah, some posters did link to sites that try to de-bunk the conspiracy theories.........but for every one of those there is a site that de-bunks the de-bunking sites.........and I have seen de-bunking sites that have been inaccurate as well.
I'm not saying all the documentaries are fabulous, but there is some quality info out there.....

Yeah, except that the debunking sites are usually done by engineers, or other people with real knowledge of what they're talking about.
The de-de-bunkers, on the other hand, are usually completely unqualified people, who have a gut feeling, or "know" what a controlled demoltion looks like.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Are you talking about Silverstein's talking about pulling it in terms of building 7?

Because in 2005 Silverstein clarified his statement through his spokesperson that the term pull it meant that the contigency of fire fighters were to pull back and the building would basically be allowed to crater because the environment was too dangerous.

Please see page 55 and 56

http://books.google.ca/books?id=3C7J...age&q=&f=false

Yeah, Silverstein did say that and I brought it up way back in this thread, but there is some confusion about what he meant when he said that. That is fine by me.......but there is still no solid explanation of how building 7 came down how it did....
There were sporadic fires on 8 floors of the building, but fire cannot bring a building down like that, and there are examples of other high rise buildings being completely engulfed in flames but never came down.
There was some minor damage to the building from tower debris, but the damage was not symmetrical, yet the building fell symmetrically like a controlled demolition.

The only question is how did they bring it down? Were there bombs planted in the building? We may not ever know........but that thing collapsed like a house of cards...doesn't add up.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Yeah, Silverstein did say that and I brought it up way back in this thread, but there is some confusion about what he meant when he said that. That is fine by me.......but there is still no solid explanation of how building 7 came down how it did....
There were sporadic fires on 8 floors of the building, but fire cannot bring a building down like that, and there are examples of other high rise buildings being completely engulfed in flames but never came down.
There was some minor damage to the building from tower debris, but the damage was not symmetrical, yet the building fell symmetrically like a controlled demolition.

The only question is how did they bring it down? Were there bombs planted in the building? We may not ever know........but that thing collapsed like a house of cards...doesn't add up.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=5

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Well yeah, some posters did link to sites that try to de-bunk the conspiracy theories.........but for every one of those there is a site that de-bunks the de-bunking sites.........and I have seen de-bunking sites that have been inaccurate as well.
I'm not saying all the documentaries are fabulous, but there is some quality info out there.....

Ok, lets just pretend for the sake of argument that all the wild crazy conspiracy theories are true: 9-11 was an inside job, Barack Superallah Obama is a secrect muslim born in Kenya, the moon landing was a hoax, the Illuminati under supervision of the lizard people are monitoring this conversation through a transmitter implanted in my teeth... For the duration of this post, its all true.

What now?
If these people are that powerful and evil that they will ruthlessly murder about 3000 of their own citizens in the matter of a couple hours just because they were bored and wanted a war, what are you going to do about it?! What power do you feel you have to stop this? What good does this knowledge do you? Why aren't you dead yet for not only knowing their secrets but spreading them?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Yeah, except that the debunking sites are usually done by engineers, or other people with real knowledge of what they're talking about.
The de-de-bunkers, on the other hand, are usually completely unqualified people, who have a gut feeling, or "know" what a controlled demoltion looks like.

There are as many amateur de-bunking sites as there are amateur conspircay sites.......
I have already mentioned this, but there are many engineers/architects that question how the buildings went down. There are "people who know what they are talking about" on both sides.....look back in the thread.

[CaptainCrunch]

What I find funny about the conspiracy theorists is multi-fold. But they can take specific pieces of data and spin and manipulate it and make it fit into their theories, they don't have to look at the overall data set. Whereas the onus of proof on people who believe that the 9/11 attacks were actual terrorist attacks not carried out by the illuminati on behalf of a rougue element of the CIA is much larger. Its almost like the Conspiracy theorist are prosecuting attorneys that can throw a ton of circumstantial evidence and guesses at the non conspiracy theroists who actually have to defend using credible witnesses and infalliable data.

The other thing that I find hilarious about the conspiracy theorists is that they are free to make things up, outright guess and manipulate quotes. The Silverstein stuff with the pull it comes to mind, the using of incomplete quotes of airtraffic controllers on their cruise missile theories and the engine quote from I think the boeing person as an expert.

If your going to build a case for a massive conspiracy the onus of actual proof and not speculation should be equal.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Yeah, Silverstein did say that and I brought it up way back in this thread, but there is some confusion about what he meant when he said that. That is fine by me.......but there is still no solid explanation of how building 7 came down how it did....
There were sporadic fires on 8 floors of the building, but fire cannot bring a building down like that, and there are examples of other high rise buildings being completely engulfed in flames but never came down.
There was some minor damage to the building from tower debris, but the damage was not symmetrical, yet the building fell symmetrically like a controlled demolition.

The only question is how did they bring it down? Were there bombs planted in the building? We may not ever know........but that thing collapsed like a house of cards...doesn't add up.

the building collapses and damages to the building have been discussed ad naseum throughout this and other threads. Its been discussed by popular mechanics and multiple other web sites throughout the world wide web with pictures and computer animations.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

the building collapses and damages to the building have been discussed ad naseum throughout this and other threads. Its been discussed by popular mechanics and multiple other web sites throughout the world wide web with pictures and computer animations.

Yes it has been discussed ad naseum.......but it seems like newbies to this thread don't want to go back and read....
The popular mechanics articles depend on alot of NIST investigation, and well, lets just day the NIST investigation is not complete. They did not even address the molten steel that was witnessed by firefighters and confirmed with thermal images on the site of towers 1 and 2.
When it comes to building 7, they sum up the collapse as a "combination of fire and physical damage".........that caused it to collapse like a house of cards.
Who hired NIST?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

There are as many amateur de-bunking sites as there are amateur conspircay sites.......
I have already mentioned this, but there are many engineers/architects that question how the buildings went down. There are "people who know what they are talking about" on both sides.....look back in the thread.

Show me one group of engineers who actually got a look at the evidence available to the people who produced the official story that still believe that it was a controlled demoltion, or that a missle hit the pentagon.